AN INCOMPLETE APOLOGY, LYNCHING IS NO LONGER LEGAL ©

The apology was weak and meekly delivered. Senators did not choose to vote on the record; they revealed their position in voice only. They did not speak in single file; nor did they state their stance strongly. They delivered their dictum as a group. The Senate stated their regret. They regret the 4742-recorded lynchings. They regret their delay. Nonetheless, here and now, they apologize. Finally, the United States Senate concluded, it is time. America must legally forbid hangings.

The United States Senate has had many opportunities to rescind what is “a stain on American history;" however, until today, they refused. In recent years, on three separate occasions, the House of Representatives voted to revoke the law that allows for legal lynchings. Yet, each time the bill was sent to the Senate floor, influential and vocal Southern Senators spoke out. They invoked their right to filibuster. Ultimately, and repeatedly, the measure died.

Death for this law was never as brutal as a death by hanging; nor was it ever as public. These frequent congressional deaths were not proud moments for America. They were rarely discussed. However, there were those that knew of them. Descendants of lynched victims knew. A man that was once hung from a tree, yet, survived, he knew. These people worked tirelessly, and with devotion, to ensure that change would come.

It has, though this is only a beginning. An apology, the repeal of an antiquated law, does not resolve much of what still is. What is, is a history of promises, and acts that contrast with these. We as a people promise equality for all. Our Constitution asserts this principle and philosophy. Yet, in practice, there is little equity. We enslave a people; [we identify others as illegal,] while simultaneously encouraging and professing freedom. This is not simply our past; it is our present.

There are times that we see the errors of our ways and then, we grant emancipation. President Lincoln did this. However, he too spoke of one truth and acted on another. Actually, he held two beliefs, concurrently.

During the first Lincoln-Douglas debate, on August 21, 1858, Lincoln stated, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the White and the Black races. I hold that . . . there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Four weeks later, on September 18, 1858, Abraham Lincoln again addressed the people’s concerns. He reflected aloud, “while they [Whites and Blacks] do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race." Lincoln, his words, and his actions are emblematic of America’s posture towards Blacks.

In fact, Whites were [and are] given a superior position in America. While separate and [un] equal is no longer legal, it is still apparent. Black bathrooms, Black schools, and restaurants that bar the presence of Negros may have not disappeared. However, the history is still with us. In fact, there are guilds that deny African-Americans entrance. They do so in the name of exclusivity. Some restrict membership, only the superior and the elite are allowed in. These organizations have no desire to include what they consider an inferior race. They dare not say these words aloud and they do not. They reveal this attitude in their actions. These associations are much like the United States Senate. They sheepishly accept change.

Change, embracing Black citizenry, is not a concept that sits well with many Americans. We speak of such and then act slowly, if at all. 105 years ago, the White majority, assured African-Americans, racial injustices would be removed. The first anti-lynching bill was proposed in 1900. Yet, it did not pass. It was easily dismissed and diminished in importance. American citizens continued to lynch, to do so publicly, proudly, often in town squares, and frequently, on a Sunday, the holiest day of the week! The last documented lynching occurred as recently as 1968!

In executing, Americans did not discriminate; nor did they limit the practice to the south. All, but four New England states are known to have strung-up persons of any race or religion. Immigrants were frequent targets. In retrospect, this embarrassed twentieth-century Americans. Therefore, early in the 1900s, the United States agreed to pay close to $500,000 to China, Italy, and Mexico. Americans hoped that these funds would serve as an apology.

Yet, the people of the United States were not ready to apologize to their own Black citizens. This nation was reluctant to rescind the law that allowed for abominable behavior. Lynching remained legal. We waited, we postponed; we did only what was compulsory. Correcting our errors was not necessary. Protecting our Black citizens from the White was not mandatory, and there were many that did not wish to do this. Thus, centuries of neglect continued and even after this apology, they will. We have yet to address the truer issues.

African-American citizens are still being killed in cold blood, though the death is not always a physical one! While we may no longer lynch persons of color, we can and do eliminate them from society. We imprison them in ghettos, in the hood, and in under-funded schools. We arrest them, often on trumped-up charges, and then we incarcerate them. We assume that they are guilty; after all, they look it, at least to those that are not Black.

In 1999, the number of Blacks in American prisons approached one million. Former federal prosecutor and associate dean of Loyola Law School, Laurie Levensen, stated, "We're incarcerating an entire generation of people." African-Americans comprise fifty percent of all prisoners, yet they are only 13 percent of our population. Poverty and a lack of [equal] opportunities may be the cause; or there may be others. We must ask ourselves, why is it that Blacks do not succeed proportionally in a country that prides itself on providing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all? Can we justify this?

Yes, we can apologize, subtlety, in a soft-spoken vote. We can annul an obsolete edict. However, these actions do little to reconcile what we as a nation have done to our Black men and women. What we, as a nation, continue to do to our Black people group cannot be brushed away with an apology. Quashing a law that should never have existed will not change what is.

On June 14, 2005, historian and civil rights leader John Hope Franklin offered a brilliant commentary on the subject. You may wish to listen to this essay;
All Things Considered, Hearing the Senate's Apology.